General Vancouver Updates

[GenWhy?]

As each round progresses you go through new departments and levels of senior staff. That and maybe you end up with a new rezoning planner every month...

[GenWhy?]

Just read the blog post. Is the issue simply that there is a UDP or both rezoning and development permit stages? Depending on the staff and the project and the meeting of guidelines (exceeding) you sometimes do not need to go to 2 UDPs. But they cannot say outright you're off scott free.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Just read the blog post. Is the issue simply that there is a UDP or both rezoning and development permit stages? Depending on the staff and the project and the meeting of guidelines (exceeding) you sometimes do not need to go to 2 UDPs. But they cannot say outright you're off scott free.

The issue I was trying to highlight is that, no matter the outcome of the meeting, policy was going to require the building to come back for another review. That the project passed without any recommendations just made it worse.

I wouldn't advocate for the abolition of the UDP, what else would I do with my Wednesday Afternoons? In seriousness though, I think they have a role for larger buildings, or ones that have a big impact on the public realm. What's going on right now with every 6 story building coming to review is just senseless. It wastes the time and resources of both the applicants and the city.

Frankly, I have no doubt that there are people who are highly skilled in their respective fields that would never consider joining the panel now, as it's just busy beyond the point of reason. Ultimately, as the recent vacancies have shown, that hurts the process and the quality of our urban realm more than anything.

[logan5]

Do we really need the UDP? I wonder. I see their body of work every day when I see the city skyline. A collection of undescript green towers that have left our city looking bland and dull, or when I walk the streets and see our public realms lined with blank walls, and yet you still have to jump through hoops for them. Yay UDP.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by logan5

Do we really need the UDP? I wonder. I see their body of work every day when I see the city skyline. A collection of undescript green towers that have left our city looking bland and dull, or when I walk the streets and see our public realms lined with blank walls, and yet you still have to jump through hoops for them. Yay UDP.

You're putting a lot of blame on a Design Panel (not an uncommon entity in cities), while letting a lot of developers off the hook for the bland, dull towers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by csbvan

You're putting a lot of blame on a Design Panel (not an uncommon entity in cities), while letting a lot of developers off the hook for the bland, dull towers.

Not to mention policy which dictates a lot and depending on the age of that policy or zoning by-law... aaannnd the Staff assigned to each individual project that help them navigate each department's review and nit-pick of their individual parts. The UDP is an independent volunteer advisory board. Their authority is limited. They do catch many good things and make some great recommendations that architects or developers who may be selling condos over or under look.

The UDP is not in charge of determining the colour of our skyline, and are not mandated to control the utilization of CRU spaces, after occupancy, how they are programmed and interact with the street.... after occupancy. A project could come forward with 8 small CRUs facing two streets, but end up at occupancy with say 3 CRUs, lots of blank walls, and unprogrammed space after 7pm, for instance. That is not the role or scope of the UDP. That's policy.

Some cities for that reason have written into their by-laws that banks can no longer be on the main floor of a building on shopping streets, because they kill the street life.

A UDP at Development Permit would be most functional, prior to the Development Permit Open House, as an evaluation of prior processes with Staff, and the Public. The design usually changes so much after the Rezoning Open House that getting a UDP together seems like a waste of time, resources, process.

[Feathered Friend]

Deceitfully Civil Neighbourhood Opposition Schemes to Kill Social Housing through Expensive Litigation

1636 Clark Drive & 1321-1395 East 1st Avenue
When we last wrote about this project at First and Clark, we gave our honest opinion that when one neighbourhood successfully argues social housing is inappropriate or poses a danger, it enables all communities to make that flawed argument. The end result is people are forced to live and die on the streets. Others argued it was wrong to highlight the fund-raising efforts against the project, and the fact that the spare funds would go to the neighbourhood area council, who had yet to take an official position on this project. Unfortunately for us and the community, the actions of some members of these groups at the per-application event validated our concerns.

We arrived at the event in time to see members of the community group, GWAC, setting up outside. Later, we later learned they were polling attendees, questioning if they would support a reduction in the amount of homes provided, or if they would prefer the proposal was killed outright. As we had never been to the campus before, it took us a small amount of time to find the event, which was held in an open area on the second floor.

Despite our oversight, we noticed two things when we entered the event area; a large polarized crowd, and an Omni TV cameraman. The crowd appeared to be evenly divided between supporters, which included many members of Abundant Housing Vancouver, and those opposed, primarily comprised of Community 1st and some members of GWAC. That said, people were fairly respectful with each other, and we eventually got to see the very crowded information boards.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/05/30...al-housing-through-expensive-litigation/

[GenWhy?]

The issue now with the label of "social housing" is that even folks earning 35k in "reduced rental" units are living in "social housing". Or a couple with a child in a 2-bed earning a combined 60-70k are the moderate income residents of "social housing". So when folks hear social housing units are coming to their area I think they might mainly see these units as your stereotyped DTES units or residents.

These proposed units, in any project in the City, can be for seniors, those with disabilities, families, or those practically earning minimum wage. CMHC reports show that Vancouver's rental vacancy is still just below 1%, Grandview-Woodlands is around 0.5%, 76% of all new housholds in the past decade are renters, +50% of Vancouver residents are renters and about 66% in Grandview-Woodlands are renters.

From the Canadian Rental Housing Index, 25% of renters here are paying over 50% of income on rent/utilities, and 46% of them are spending more than 30%.

[officedweller]

One thing that strikes me is that Terminal / 1st Ave. and Clark Drive is a "gateway" to the Commercial Drive neighbourhood.

When driving eastbound on Terminal across the viaduct over the open railyards, this building isn't very welcoming
- particularly due to the heavy institutional looking base.

I actually think it would look better if the two top parts were stacked on each other at the eastern end of the site,
so the building rises WITH the slope.
The current massing creates a plateau that is 10 storeys above Clark Drive
- effectively placing pedestrians on Clark Drive at the bottom of a massive cliff.
It's overbearing at street level.

Note that the first rendering is taken from a viewpoint significantly above grade.

i.e. if a similarly composed block is built on the recently sold Chevron cardlock station site to the south,
you'd have the equivalent of a couple of palms facing you - like a policeman stopping traffic.

Here's the intersection on Street View:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/E+1st+A...d7c14281!8m2!3d49.2696679!4d-123.0773582

[GenWhy?]

I doubt the neighbouring building would reach the roughly 9-storeys this project hits, due to the allowed height relaxation with a social housing component. I-2 sites could give you 6-storeys, economically speaking with an upper wood-frame structure under rezoning, mainly due tot he prices paid for that land. I think Form Projects still holds that site, and can't remember of their intent to sell or hold. Form Projects is bent on building rental housing primarily.

As far as height and form, in 20-30 years this building will not look that out of place. So at that intersection in 10 years you might have a 10-storey across the street from a 6-8 storey building. Mind you, that old Chevron site would be highly articulated and setback on many points due to it will probably not be social housing. Social housing is allowed to have less setbacks for more units / affordability.

[GenWhy?]

And similar heights exist all along Clark. So you'd more likely have a "wall" of 6-storey buildings and 1 10-storey along your 2 minute drive to look at going east... in 10-20 years.

[officedweller]

In terms of a gateway, it's not the height per se, but the sheer wall without setbacks
and the practically windowless base that are offputting.
A 6 storey podium with a taller tower behind up the hill would look a lot better
(and that would allow more standardization of units in one tower)

[a very long weekend]

^ The entire neighborhood should be filled with buildings like the proposed. The idea that tall buildings a walkable distance away from tens of thousands of jobs should be prohibited because they are unpleasant to look at or bad for a person's health is very strange. Even on SSP people seem finally to be coming around on the long overdue abolition of the UDP, and eventually the Vancouverites who are paying 40%+ of their income on rent each month will clue in on the how the planners have created the artificial land shortage at the root of the housing crisis. "The massing is too bulky, it's overbearing" = 50 units instead of 100, and 2000 new units in a neighborhood plan instead of 5000.

I can see why the people who have theirs would want to continue to advocate for the current 75% detached low rise land use regime. They're invested in the value of their property, and their pleasantly suburban lifestyle a bike ride from work in an ultra high demand real estate environment. What's not to love? But especially for younger people, whose money is being vacuumed up by landlords or mortgages because of the artificial land shortage, it's not tenable. What you're saying here doesn't make any sense, from my perspective.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

In terms of a gateway, it's not the height per se, but the sheer wall without setbacks
and the practically windowless base that are offputting.
A 6 storey podium with a taller tower behind up the hill would look a lot better
(and that would allow more standardization of units in one tower)

I understand and similarly don't understand your position. As a person who deals in development, City guidelines and planning, activism, I am genuinely interested in your position and thoughts/ideas.

I've gathered height on Clark Drive is not the issue, but the 10-storey wall that would go up on Clark for pedestrians, and as well as for drivers travelling east along 1st Ave? I understand the pedestrian aspect. Your argument is for a setback from Clark above the 6th storey. From a design standpoint, you'd then need to minimize or eliminate the centre plaza and/or increase the height of the eastern-most segment of the building to maintain the number of units. 1 metre makes all the difference - positive and negative - to a project's units. Fronting an industrial zoned area, an arterial, and being institutional and social housing, the requirement for setbacks compared to other forms of housing is not necessarily needed from a guidelines and policy point-of-view. Whether that's good/bad, right/wrong can be up for debate.

For a pedestrian experience at this intersection which is zoned for industrial I don't think, as it stands in the area's current context, that setbacks would be greatly required. And as for the driver's experience travelling east on 1st I don't see the need to minimize a "wall" effect with setbacks from a planning / design point-of-view. Under current zoning a 50-60' building with no setbacks can be built on all points at that intersection. The difference after construction will be wider sidewalks, trees, and new pavement / separation from heavy traffic.

The community and the new area plan would not allow a taller tower at this site. Not a hill for the City to die on with this project. They're going for an easy kill, and rightfully so for such a needed and good project, IMO.

[GenWhy?]

Similarly almost all of Clark is zoned and is wished to be maintained as industrial, which is generally non-pedestrian friendly. The building is largely following zoning.

This building's first floor at the intersection opens up with industrial/commercial which could be any sort of allowed business but would non-the-less provide windows and activation to a better degree at-grade.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1636clark/documents/floorplans.pdf

[officedweller]

I'm just talking about the massing of the building vis-à-vis a "gateway" location, not the density of the site or the area.
A 5-6 storey streetwall on Clark is fine, but 10 storeys rising directly from the Clark Drive sidewalk, at a gateway location, seems overbearing. If the residential units in the west tower were replaced by more floors in the east tower, I would think that would provide some cost efficiencies since you can replicate the floors in just 1 tower. Removing the west tower would also provide afternoon sunlight to the rooftop courtyard and open up City views from the courtyard for all residents, not just those occupying units facing Clark Drive.

If 1st Ave. is an entry into the Commercial Drive neighbourhood, not really ceremonial, but one of the principal entry points from downtown, should it be treated as just another gap in the streetwall?

Then again, I don't like The Independent because the building is cantilevered over the Broadway sidewalk and doesn't give much breathing space at grade. Even The Rise on Cambie and the adjacent Canadian Tire project have little plazas on the corners rather than coming to the (widened) sidewalks on all sides.

Thanks for the plans.
The rendering actually does a poor job of illustrating the project.
The at-grade on Clark Drive will be set back under an Independent-like cantilevered overhang and the plans seem to show more windows on the Clark Drive facade (both at-grade and above) than in the rendering. The plans also show a substantially wider sidewalk on 1st Ave. (and Clark Drive) than shown on the rendering, which may mitigate the "gap in the streetwall" entrance to the Commercial Drive neighbourhood.

[officedweller]

Wrong thread

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm just talking about the massing of the building vis-à-vis a "gateway" location, not the density of the site or the area.
A 5-6 storey streetwall on Clark is fine, but 10 storeys rising directly from the Clark Drive sidewalk, at a gateway location, seems overbearing. If the residential units in the west tower were replaced by more floors in the east tower, I would think that would provide some cost efficiencies since you can replicate the floors in just 1 tower. Removing the west tower would also provide afternoon sunlight to the rooftop courtyard and open up City views from the courtyard for all residents, not just those occupying units facing Clark Drive.

If 1st Ave. is an entry into the Commercial Drive neighbourhood, not really ceremonial, but one of the principal entry points from downtown, should it be treated as just another gap in the streetwall?

Then again, I don't like The Independent because the building is cantilevered over the Broadway sidewalk and doesn't give much breathing space at grade. Even The Rise on Cambie and the adjacent Canadian Tire project have little plazas on the corners rather than coming to the (widened) sidewalks on all sides.

Thanks for the plans.
The rendering actually does a poor job of illustrating the project.
The at-grade on Clark Drive will be set back under an Independent-like cantilevered overhang and the plans seem to show more windows on the Clark Drive facade (both at-grade and above) than in the rendering. The plans also show a substantially wider sidewalk on 1st Ave. (and Clark Drive) than shown on the rendering, which may mitigate the "gap in the streetwall" entrance to the Commercial Drive neighbourhood.

Merely going to comment as notes to your remarks. Not a dig at your thoughts.

The Independent has a "massive" setback at-grade along Broadway due to #99 bus stop and general foot traffic / commercial activation, and this is a practice between the City and developers to accommodate the extra public sidewalk for the City, while not taking a full "straight up" setback for the whole building -which is a massive loss (grab) in expensive square footage that is usually never compensated. Whether it looks go or more is easily up for discussion, but it's largely seen as a compromise.

The Rise on Cambie is a good example of regular City practice of forcing developments to create "pedestrian plazas" and public space, in addition to the increased setbacks from the property line for increased sidewalk space... again, not compensated. However, these projects follow different zoning by-law rules and are on completely different streets, demanding a completely separate set of rules and guidelines to follow. Does every intersection demand plaza space in addition to widened and improved sidewalks / public realm? Not sure, but happily always up for debate as the city densifies.

While the argument for some degree of setback on the floors above level 6 on Clark is a fair one, arguments made to defend the height are that no shadows on Clark occur, the community would be against (due to grade) a taller building on the east of the lot, and that the reference as a "gateway" is purely auto-centric at best and has no relevance to setbacks due to setbacks being almost purely an interaction with pedestrians at-grade. If you take the 6-storeys from Clark are reposition it elsewhere, you're still given a 10-storey structure next to 2-3 storey residential, and a structure from 1st Ave looking more like a 14-16 storey building.

If the intersection was along the lines of R or C zoning, and fronted by potentially active structures on all corners, rather than just two I-2 sites, then I could see the argument personally, professionally, and from the perspective of a community member, to hold more weight.

[s211]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The Rise on Cambie is a good example of regular City practice of forcing developments to create "pedestrian plazas" and public space, in addition to the increased setbacks from the property line for increased sidewalk space... again, not compensated. However, these projects follow different zoning by-law rules and are on completely different streets, demanding a completely separate set of rules and guidelines to follow. Does every intersection demand plaza space in addition to widened and improved sidewalks / public realm? Not sure, but happily always up for debate as the city densifies.

IMHO, the Rise and Crossroads are great examples of what looks like widened sideways on paper, but is almost un-navigable in practice. The clash between planted trees, soft and hard landscaping, bus shelters, tenant sandwich boards, etc., makes for a very narrow passageway for real pedestrians, who also have to dodge cyclists that have staked their claim to the sidewalk.

[Feathered Friend]

No Complaints in Norquay, Coromandel’s Sawtooth Towers Have Room Buzzing About Future Growth

2725-2751 Kingsway
As City Duo nears 100 posts, with Darren and I having spent dozens of hours at open house events and meetings at City Hall, it’s safe to say we care about the future of our region, and the people who want to call it home. Still, there are times we might go overboard, and this night was one of those occasions.

The truth is we both love pre-application events, as it’s a first glance at what an area may look like for the next 60 + years. Often, these meetings have a large impact in shaping a project, as it is the first opportunity for public to voice their thoughts. However, in this case, it was actually the second event for this site, as the developer has recently expanded their concept by acquiring the neighbouring Fountain Tire property.

Naturally, we were both really curious to see how the proposal had changed from the original vision. Despite this, I really thought Darren should have stayed at home as he was visibly under the weather (though not infectious), and would have benefited from some extra rest. Instead, my stubborn partner put aside my objections, and dragged himself to the event.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/06/01...s-have-room-buzzing-about-future-growth/